D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!

[Maxperson]

Nor does complaining about a perceived lack of versatility entitle them to more versatility.

Yep. The Sorcerer is the simple casting class. The same way that the Champion is the simple Fighter. Not everyone wants a ton of options when they play the game.

 

[Maxperson]

It can. As has been pointed out - such a rule being official optional can put pressure on the social cohesion of a particular table.

To someone who is weak willed, sure. Someone who can't say no to a disruptive rule shouldn't be DMing. Nor should that person be considered when it comes to what rules go into a book.

 

[FrogReaver]

To someone who is weak willed, sure. Someone who can't say no to a disruptive rule shouldn't be DMing. Nor should that person be considered when it comes to what rules go into a book.

It's not just about being weak willed. It's how the rest of the table perceives your style of just saying no (whether appreciated or viewed as being heavy handed) and how that can impact the social dynamic and create greater tension down the road.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm taking a break for the night. @Maxperson seems to be handling things pretty well for the time being.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not just about being weak willed. It's how the rest of the table perceives your style of just saying no (whether appreciated or viewed as being heavy handed) and how that can impact the social dynamic and create greater tension down the road.

If a player views me as being heavy handed because I say no to a disruptive rule, that player is welcome to find a new game. I don't need someone that selfish in my game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's controversial, because once again it's only your opinion here and not any kind of fact. You say 4 skills are better than 2, but 2 often used skills will be better than 4 that are not used very often. Unless a 2 uncommonly used skills are your favorites, and then those 2 will be better than 4 you don't like. The same with spells and the other sorcerer abilities. Someone who really likes metamagic will value the Sorcerer more highly than a wizard, making the Sorcerer the better class.

You don't get to pick what everyone else values. The method you use to decide which is best doesn't apply to anyone else. They get to decide how they value classes for themselves.

Yeah, you're messing up the analogy, it was about a situation where other factors are equal, because Chaosmancer doesn't understand why more spells is better than less spells. If you're creating a character and option A is to choose any four skills and option B is to choose any two skills, can you really not tell which option is more powerful?

 

[Asisreo]

It's not weak, it's just not good at casting the spells it wants to cast that day, unlike Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Artificers, and Wizards.

People complaining about this lack of versatility does not warrant you telling them to play a different class.

I'm not kicking them out of the class, but not every class was meant to be enjoyable for everyone.

Personally I dislike playing wizards and avoid it if I can. There's nothing necessarily wrong with wizards in general, I just don't like their playstyle. If someone advised me to play a different class, I wouldn't find it offensive, mean, or dismissive.

Hopefully no one thinks that I'm telling them that they aren't allowed to play a sorcerer, but just like how not all types of games work in every game system, not all playstyles work in all classes.

People have multiple complaints about all the classes in the game. Barbarians don't have enough out-of-combat stuff, Bards don't do enough damage, Clerics can't heal well enough, druids are too reliant on wildshape, fighters start to need magic items, monks rely on short rests, rogues can't NOVA, paladins suck at range, wizards are too squishy.

There are always things to push these weakness out, but a weakness is still a weakness even when you try to apply a bandaid to it. The player should recognize the weakness and decide they would like to play despite it.

If you want to play sorcerer even though you don't like the playstyle, by all means. But distaste for it afterwards should not be a surprise, and it shouldn't be assumed that something's wrong just because you don't enjoy it.

A class could be perfectly designed from levels 1-20 and you still can't guarantee it will be fun for everyone who uses it.

 

[FrogReaver]

If a player views me as being heavy handed because I say no to a disruptive rule, that player is welcome to find a new game. I don't need someone that selfish in my game.

Or you were wrong and it wasn't actually a disruptive rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, you're messing up the analogy, it was about a situation where other factors are equal, because Chaosmancer doesn't understand why more spells is better than less spells. If you're creating a character and option A is to choose any four skills and option B is to choose any two skills, can you really not tell which option is more powerful?

It would depend on what modifies those spells, such as class abilities. Which puts us squarely back into Camp Subjective again. All else can never be equal when discussing two different classes, so that's not a worthwhile avenue to go down. If you want all other factors to be equal, then they are both the same class with all the same spells, so neither is more powerful.

 

[Maxperson]

Or you were wrong and it wasn't actually a disruptive rule.

I can't be wrong. I run a certain style of game and that rule would disrupt it. Period.